R.Veeramani Vs The Sub Registrar

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records connected with the refusal check slip RFL/Elumalai/73/2025 dated 18.09.2025 issued by the respondent quash the same to register a release deed submitted by the petitioner and others in respect of the land in survey No.209/2 at Athipatti, Peraiyur Taluk in Madurai District and quash the same consequently directing the respondent to register the release deed within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶10

1/6

¶11

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶12

W.P(MD)No.29857 of 2025

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Devarajan For Respondent : Mr.G.V.Vairam Santhosh, Addl. Government Pleader.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Heard both sides.

¶16

2.The release deed dated 15.09.2025 was executed in favour of the writ petitioner by his mother and siblings. The respondent declined to register the document on the ground that ownership could not be determined. Challenging the stand of the respondent, this writ petition has been filed.

¶17

3.It is seen that vide sale deed dated 29.02.1996 (Document No.202/1996), 40 cents of land in S.No.209/2, Athipatti Village was purchased by the writ petitioner's father / Ramachandran. Ramachandran passed away. O.S.No.123 of 1996 was filed against Ramachandran on the file of District Musnif Court, Thirumangalam. The suit was dismissed on 08.04.2004. Patta Nos.2502 and 4887 in respect of

¶18

2/6

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶20

W.P(MD)No.29857 of 2025

¶21

S.No.209/2A and 209/2A1A are joint patta and they stand in the name of

¶22

the writ petitioner, his mother and siblings. The said joint patta apart from Ramachandran's family refereed other members of the families of one Dhayalan, Samidurai and Duraisamy Nadar. That was probably why, the registering authority held that the document cannot be registered.

¶23

4.It is seen that in O.S.No.123 of 1996, Dhayalan figured as the second plaintiff. That was a suit for permanent injunction. The suit ended in favour of the Ramachandran, the father of the writ petitioner. That apart, what is sought to be registered is only a deed of release. Admittedly, Ramachandran had purchased 40 cents of land vide sale deed dated 29.02.1996. Out of the said 40 cents, 21 cents of land were sold already. The remaining extent is 19 cents. Out of the said 19 cents, 9 ½ cents is now sought to be released. Though some confusions have been created on account of joint patta, the fact is that the title document which is of the year 1996 favours the stand of the writ petitioner.

¶24

5.In this view of the matter, the order impugned in the writ petition is set aside. The parties are liberty to re-present the document. It shall be

¶25

3/6

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

W.P(MD)No.29857 of 2025

¶28

registered and released subject to fulfilment of other usual formalities. This writ petition is allowed. No costs.

¶29

31.10.2025 NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes/ No ias